Psomas2019 PDF

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
Research gaps in Lean manufacturing: a systematic literature review

Evangelos Psomas, Jiju Antony,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Evangelos Psomas, Jiju Antony, (2019) "Research gaps in Lean manufacturing: a systematic
literature review", International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJQRM-12-2017-0260
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-12-2017-0260
Downloaded by Tulane University At 17:28 14 February 2019 (PT)
Downloaded on: 14 February 2019, At: 17:28 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 147 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:402646 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-671X.htm
QUALITY PAPER Research gaps

in lean
Research gaps in Lean manufacturing
manufacturing: a systematic
literature review
Evangelos Psomas Received 6 December 2017
Department of Business Administration of Food and Agricultural Enterprises, Revised 21 February 2018
4 May 2018
University of Patras, Patras, Greece, and Accepted 18 October 2018
Jiju Antony
School of Management and Languages, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Literature contributions to Lean manufacturing (LM) are fragmented and show some significant
limitations. The purpose of this paper is to identify the existing research gaps in LM as well as to group them
into respective themes.
Design/methodology/approach – A systematic literature review (SLR) of peer reviewed journal articles in
LM was carried out by the authors, based on four major publishers, namely, Emerald Online, Science Direct,
Springer Link and Taylor & Francis. In total, 120 articles published in 30 journals during 2005–2016 were
collected which revealed LM research gaps. A simple affinity diagram was applied in order to group the
research gaps into logical themes.
Findings – A large number of research gaps are identified in the LM literature and meaningful themes of
these gaps are also revealed.
Research limitations/implications – The SLR carried out by the authors is based on only four academic
journal publishers and some of other publishers might have been missed out in this search. Excluding articles
focusing on an individual Lean principle or tool/technique is also a limitation of the present SLR.
Practical implications – Researchers and practitioners can use the LM research gaps presented in this
study for further development of LM methodology.
Originality/value – Presenting LM research gaps analytically and grouping them into meaningful themes,
significantly differentiates the present SLR study from those published so far.
Keywords Lean manufacturing, Systematic literature review, Research gap
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Nowadays, manufacturing companies operate under circumstances that are characterized by
globalization, strong competition, demanding consumers ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014), an economic
downturn and a financial crisis (Psomas and Kafetzopoulos, 2014; Gelei et al., 2015). To deal with
these challenges, many companies transform their traditional management style (Shamah, 2013)
and adopt methods that drive improvements in cost, quality, productivity and operational
performance, such as Lean manufacturing (LM) (Sharma et al., 2016). The great performance
advantages achieved by Toyota, the best-in-class Lean manufacturer (Womack and Jones, 1996)
and the company which the origin of Lean thinking is generally attributed to (Fullerton et al.,
2014), also motivated many plants to adopt the Lean concept achieving world-leading levels of
efficiency (Krafcik, 1988). Thus, nowadays, LM has spread in the developed economies of the
USA and Europe and the developing economies of Asia (Chaplin et al., 2016).
As a result of the widespread application of LM, there has been a significant increase in the
research and academic literature in this field (Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014; Samuel et al., 2015).
Following the growth of publications of research studies, literature review articles on LM have International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
also been published ( Jasti and Kodali, 2015). However, the various meanings of knowledge © Emerald Publishing Limited
0265-671X
and interpretations of LM which have evolved (Stone, 2012) and the considerable differences DOI 10.1108/IJQRM-12-2017-0260
IJQRM between LM theory and practice (Langstrand and Drotz, 2016) have caused confusion in the
LM implementation and research (Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016a). Jasti and Kodali
(2014, 2015) state that there is still a need for a thorough review of empirical literature in the
field of LM focusing on research gaps, while similarly, Marodin and Saurin (2013) state that
there is a need to identify the main research directions of LM that have not yet been explored.
Inspired by the suggestions of leading academics and researchers with regard to
conducting literature review studies on LM, the present study attempts to answer the
following research questions through a comprehensive SLR:
RQ1. What are the research gaps in the existing literature with regard to LM?
RQ2. What are the main themes of the research gaps in LM?
The present study is different from the literature review studies on LM published so far. More
specifically, the existing LM literature review studies have focused on the following issues: the
phases of Lean and the core knowledge and voids from the past four decades of scholarly
Lean literature (1970–2009) (Stone, 2012); the effects of Lean on the working environment and
employee health and well-being, based on publications from 1999 to 2009 (Hasle et al., 2012);
the relationships that arise in the research of Lean production (LP) from the end of 1980s to
2009 and the directions for future research (Moyano-Fuentes and Sacristan-Diaz, 2012); the
role and implications of enterprise resource planning systems in LP, based on the literature
published after the year 2000 and up to 2011 (Powell, 2013); the research methodologies used
in Lean and their related facets as well as the future directions of Lean research, based on
publications from 1990 to 2009 ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014); the divergent definitions, scopes,
objectives and tools/techniques/methodologies of LM, published in studies over the period
1988–2012 (Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014); the status of LP and its improvement, based on
research articles published from 1988 to 2011 ( Jasti and Kodali, 2015); patterns and trends of
the literature from 1987 to 2013, that could explain the acceptance of Lean as an operations
management philosophy (Samuel et al., 2015); the implementation of Lean in small- and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (key characteristics, implications for practitioners and
future areas of research), based on studies published up to the beginning of 2015 (Hu et al.,
2015); and the evolution of the Leanness assessment literature (research objectives and
methodologies and potential future research directions) published before January 2014
(Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016a).
Most of the above mentioned studies review articles which have been published before
2012, while few studies are based on articles published up to the beginning of 2015. Those
studies presenting future research directions of Lean, focus either on not so recent periods
(before 2009), or on a special sector of companies such as SMEs or on a special subject such as
Leanness. Finally, it is worth noting that none of the above mentioned literature review studies
present in an analytical manner the existing research gaps of LM and nor do they group these
gaps into themes and prioritize them, which is the ultimate goal of the present literature review
study. The above mentioned studies support the originality of the present study.
The structure of the paper is as follows: in the next section, LM is defined. The literature
review methodology and the respective phases are then presented. In the following section,
the results of the literature review are analytically presented describing the profile of the
articles reviewed and the existing research gaps. The results are then discussed and the
conclusions are presented.
Defining LM
The two-fold content of LM
“Lean Manufacturing is Lean because it uses less of everything compared with mass
production: half the human effort in a factory, half the manufacturing space, half the
investment in tools, half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time,” Research gaps
(Womack et al., 1990, p. 11). By consuming the least amount of the available resources and in lean
utilizing them more effectively, customer requirements are satisfied at minimum cost manufacturing
(Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005; Hodge et al., 2011).
Gamage et al. (2016) refer to the LM socio-technical system, highlighting its two-fold
content. Similarly, Taj (2005) stresses the two important aspects in LM, the human and the
non-human. The non-human aspect is the design of the production process dealing with,
among others, the layout, inventory, scheduling and supply chain. The human aspect, which is
also of equal importance, is the organizational design. This aspect deals with the type of
organization, job security, personnel turnover, team activity and training. Similarly, Bhamu
and Sangwan (2014) describe LM from two points of view, one from a philosophical
perspective related to guiding principles and overarching goals and the other from a practical
perspective of a set of management practices, tools or techniques that can be observed directly.
LM principles and tools/techniques

According to Womack and Jones (1996), Lean principles are the following: define value
precisely from the perspective of the end customer in terms of a specific product with
specific capabilities offered at a specific price and time, identify the entire value stream for
each product or product family and eliminate waste, create flow within the value stream,
design and provide what the customer wants only when the customer wants it, and pursue
perfection. Carlborg et al. (2013) and Waterbury (2015), relying on the Lean literature, also
mentioned the above five principles as those precisely reflecting Lean philosophy and under
which respective Lean practices can be implemented.
A wide variety of practices/tools/techniques are implemented under the umbrella of Lean
philosophy and principles, including, for example: value stream mapping, kanban/pull,
just-in-time, total production maintenance, 5S (sort, straighten, shine, standardize and
self-discipline), cellular manufacturing, continuous improvement, Total Quality
Management (TQM), kaizen, single minute exchange of dies, multifunctional teams,
production smoothing (heijunka), visual control (andon), poke yoke, standardized work,
simulation, automation (jidoka) (Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014), setup time reduction,
workforce involvement in solving problems, cross-training, lot size reduction, root cause
analysis for problem solving, concurrent engineering and workforce recognition and reward
(Sezen et al., 2012; Marodin and Saurin, 2013).
LM objectives
There is a consensus among researchers that the variety of principles and tools/techniques
involved with LM have the same ultimate goal: to eliminate all types of waste (Hodge et al.,
2011; Yang et al., 2011; Nawanir et al., 2013, 2016; Pullan et al., 2013; Longoni et al., 2013;
Sangwan et al., 2014; Gamage et al., 2016) and the non-value-added activities at every stage
of the production or service process of a manufacturing company (Hodge et al., 2011; Yang
et al., 2011; Jasti and Kodali, 2016) and the supply chain (Pullan et al., 2013; Gamage et al.,
2016). Moreover, the improvement of all the value-added processes throughout the company
and the supply chain is an objective of Lean (Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman, 2013). Thus, Lean
aims to provide superior customer value through holistic process optimization, both within
the organization (not only at the shop-floor level but also in the whole organizational
structure) and up and down the supply chain (Hu et al., 2015).
Methodology
To achieve the aim of the present study, a SLR of LM was conducted, given that this
methodology poses clear advantages over classical narrative reviews (Lim et al., 2014), and
IJQRM it is presented in many articles published in high-quality scientific journals (Hu et al., 2015).
The SLR methodology consisting of the planning stage, conducting stage and reporting/
dissemination stage, as presented by Tranfield et al. (2003), was adopted in the present
study. Similarly, the SLR studies in the field of Lean of Albliwi et al. (2014, 2015) and Hu et al.
(2015) were also based on the same methodology.
Stage I – planning the review

The main phase of this stage includes the preparation and development of the review protocol
(Tranfield et al., 2003). Similar to the literature review studies in the field of Lean of Jasti and
Kodali (2014, 2015), the management science publishers of peer-reviewed academic articles
considered in the present SLR were the following: Emerald Online, Science Direct, Springer
Link and Taylor & Francis. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were formulated (Table I) in order
to restrict the search to articles relevant to the scope of this study.
The year 2005 was taken as the beginning of the present SLR, given that from 2005
onwards the number of LM articles has substantially increased (Stone, 2012; Bhamu
and Sangwan, 2014; Samuel et al., 2015). According to Shah and Ward (2007) and
Camacho-Minano et al. (2013), LM must be considered from a multidimensional perspective
covering a variety of highly inter-related individual management practices in an integrated
system, none of which are on their own equivalent to LM, but which together comprise the
system. Thus, the search of the literature was based on terms such as Lean, LM, LP, Lean
principles, Lean practices/tools/techniques, while articles focusing on a specific Lean principle
or tool were not taken into consideration in the present SLR. Moreover, articles related to an
individual bundle of Lean practices, namely, Just-in-Time ( JIT), TQM, Total Preventative
Maintenance (TPM) and Human Resource Management (Yang et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2013;
Longoni et al., 2013) were not taken into consideration. The synonym of Lean meaning the
Toyota Production System (TPS) (Hasle et al., 2012) was also not used as a term for searching
the literature, given that LM is an update of TPS (Barbosa et al., 2014) and more generic and
less culturally specific than the Japanese TPS (Samuel et al., 2015). Finally, the review team
consisting of the authors of this paper, checked for any significant omissions or over-sights
resulting from the selection of search terms, time periods, databases, etc. (Hu et al., 2015).
Stage II – conducting the review

Based on the search terms identified at the planning stage, search strings were constructed
and entered in exactly the same way in the bibliographic databases. All the articles provided
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Articles published between 2005 and 2016 Any publication before the year 2005 and after 2016
Well-known databases: Emerald Online, Science Non-academic databases
Direct, Springer Link and Taylor & Francis
Academic journals Books, online sites and gray literature (conferences, master’s
theses, doctoral dissertations, textbooks, reports, working
papers from research groups, technical reports, etc.)
Articles studying Lean manufacturing, Articles studying an individual Lean principle or tool/
production, principles, practices/tools/ technique or bundle of practices
techniques Articles studying Toyota Production System, Lean-Six Sigma,
Lean-Agile manufacturing and Lean-Green management
Table I. Articles highlighting research gaps Articles not highlighting research gaps
Inclusion and Articles related to the manufacturing sector Articles related to the services sector
exclusion criteria for The unit of the analysis is the organization itself The unit of the analysis is the supply chain network
literature review Articles written in the English language Articles written in any other language but English
by the bibliographic databases as a result of the search were screened appropriately and Research gaps
examined for their fit with the focus of the study by taking into consideration the title, in lean
abstract and keywords of each article and, if these were not clear enough, by reading the full manufacturing
paper. The application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a final sample of
120 articles published in 30 journals (Table II).
The information revealed from the articles of the sample such as the title, year of
publication, journal, authors, paper type, geographic research area, industry sub-sectors and
number of companies participating in the research study together with the statements of the
research gaps were extracted in an excel spread sheet (Tranfield et al., 2003; Hu et al., 2015).
It is worth noting that the research gaps were reported by the authors in the reviewed
articles using statements such as “it is difficult to find detailed empirical studies regarding
[…],” “very little research has been carried out relating to […],” “the literature lacks a
rigorous research approach […] […]” and so on. In order to deal with the chaotic and
unorganized qualitative data of research gaps, the “affinity diagram” was applied
(Lagrosen, 2017), which is one of the “new seven quality tools” (McQuater et al., 1995; Sousa
et al., 2005) and commonly used (Tari and Sabater, 2004). By organizing the research gaps
Publisher – Journals Number of articles Percent
Emerald 46 0.380
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 12 0.100
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 10 0.075
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 9 0.083
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 3 0.025
Benchmarking: An International Journal 3 0.025
British Food Journal 2 0.017
Measuring Business Excellence 1 0.008
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 1 0.008
Business Process Management Journal 1 0.008
European Business Review 1 0.008
Management Research News 1 0.008
Journal of Modelling in Management 1 0.008
Research Journal of Textile and Apparel 1 0.008
Taylor & Francis 41 0.340
International Journal of Production Research 24 0.200
Production Planning & Control 12 0.100
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 2 0.017
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 2 0.017
Journal of Asia-Pacific Business 1 0.008
Elsevier/Science Direct 21 0.175
International Journal of Production Economics 7 0.058
Journal of Operations Management 7 0.058
Procedia Manufacturing 1 0.008
Management Accounting Research 2 0.017
Review of Applied Management Studies 1 0.008
Accounting, Organizations and Society 1 0.008
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 1 0.008
European Management Journal 1 0.008
Springer Link 12 0.100
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 8 0.067 Table II.
Operations Management Research 2 0.017 The list of journals
Production Engineering Research and Development 1 0.008 considered in the
Journal of Business Ethics 1 0.008 present study
IJQRM into natural and logical groups, according to some form of natural affinity (Moura Sa and
Martins, 2016), a meaningful structure of themes of research gaps was created (Chan et al.,
2009; Lagrosen, 2017).
Stage III – reporting and dissemination

Based on the excel spread sheet developed in Stage II, a clear picture of the sample articles is
provided and critically presented. Moreover, the analytically presented research gaps as
well as the respective meaningful themes revealed, provide an in depth look at the existing
research gap. Further clustering of the themes of research gaps and a ranking of them are
also included in this stage.
Results
The profile of the articles reviewed
The distribution of the reviewed articles among the four publishers and the respective
academic journals is presented in Table II. Emerald and Elsevier/Science Direct are the
databases that include the majority of the journals (70 percent) which have published the
sample articles (Figure 1), while Emerald and Taylor & Francis are the databases that
include the majority of the sample articles (72.5 percent) (Figure 2). From Table II it is
apparent that the majority of the sample articles of each publisher have been published by
few journals. More specifically, 3 out of the 13 journals (23.1 percent) of Emerald have
published 67.4 percent of the sample articles of this publisher, 2 out of the 5 journals of
Taylor & Francis (40 percent) have published 87.8 percent of the sample articles of this
publisher, 2 out of the 8 journals of Elsevier/Science Direct (25 percent) have published 66.7
percent of the sample articles of this publisher and 1 out of the 4 journals (25 percent) of
Springer Link has published 66.7 percent of the sample articles of this publisher.
Journals/Publisher
14 13
12
10
8
8
6 5
4
4
2
Figure 1. 0
Journals per publisher Emerald Elsevier/Science Direct Taylor and Springer Link
Francis
Articles/Publisher
50 46
45 41
40
35
30
25 21
20
15 12
10
5
Figure 2. 0
Articles per publisher Emerald Taylor and Elsevier/Science Springer Link
Francis Direct
According to Figure 3, the vast majority of the sample articles (89.2 percent) were published Research gaps
between 2011 and 2016. About 45 percent of the sample articles describe surveys, in lean
33.3 percent case studies, 12.5 percent literature reviews and finally 9.2 percent conceptual manufacturing
studies (Figure 4). A large proportion of the surveys described in the sample articles
(42.6 percent) is based on a small research sample ( o100 units), while the vast majority of
the surveys (79.6 percent) are based on a research sample which is smaller than
300 (Figure 5). Based on the sample articles describing case studies (40) and the number of
the case organizations studied, it is apparent that the majority of these studies (60 percent)
are based on only one case organization. The remaining studies are multi-case studies
Articles/Year
35
30
30
25 22
20
20
15
15
11
10 9
4
5 2 1 1
3 2 Figure 3.
0 Articles per
publication year
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Articles/Type
60
54
50
40
40
30
20
15
11
10
Figure 4.
0 Article type
Survey Case study Literature review Conceptual
Surveys/Sample Number
25 23
20
15
12
10 8
5
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1
0
Figure 5.
0
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Sample number
10
00
50
00
–2
–3
–4
–5
–6
–7
–8
–9
,0
0–
1,
1,
2,
>2
examined in surveys
1
1–
1–
1–
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
50
1,
1,
IJQRM describing 2–12 organizations (Figure 6). Finally, the vast majority of the literature review
studies (80 percent) reviewed no more than 200 articles (Figure 7). The manufacturing
sub-sectors mostly examined in the surveys and case studies presented in the sample
articles are the following: electrical/electronics, automotive, machinery, food, plastics and
rubber, textiles and apparel and chemicals (Figure 8). The companies participating in the
studies of the sample articles operate in 45 countries on 6 continents. The majority of these
countries belong to Europe (42.2 percent) and Asia (31.1 percent) (Figure 9). The countries
with the highest number of LM surveys and case studies are the following: the USA, the UK,
Brazil, India, Italy and Germany (Table III).
The research gaps in the current literature

Table IV presents the research gap statements which have been shortened describing their
main content as well as the respective themes revealed through applying the “affinity
diagram.” Taking into consideration the content of these themes, it is apparent that the vast
majority of them concern the Lean approach itself and more specifically, in the
manufacturing context, the Lean theory, definition, strategy, barriers, critical success
factors, learning, benefits, implementation guideline framework, effects and implementation
issues; waste management; the human factor involved in Lean; the assessment of Lean
implementation; Leanness; and the inter-relationships among Lean elements. On the other
hand, few themes of research gaps concern factors outside the Lean approach itself,
meaning the type of study and its methodology, the countries which companies operate in,
the manufacturing sub-sectors and units, the supply chain, other management approaches
for Lean integration and factors affecting Lean implementation.
Case studies/Number of cases

30
24
25
20
15
10
Figure 6.
Number of cases 4 4
5
2 2
examined in the “case 1 1 1 1
study” articles 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Literature review studies/Articles reviewed

4.5
4
4
3.5
3 3
3
2.5
2
2
Figure 7. 1.5
1 1 1
Number of articles 1
reviewed in the
“literature review” 0.5
studies 0
0–50 50–100 101–150 151–200 201–250 251–300 301–350 >350
Studies/Manufacturing sub-sectors Research gaps
40
36
in lean
35
35 manufacturing
30
26
25
25
20 19
18 18
16
15
10
10 9 9 9
8 8
6 6
5
5 4
3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
Electrical/electronics
Automotive (and parts)
Machinery
Food
Plastics and rubber products
Textiles and apparel
Chemicals
Basic metals and other minerals
Furniture and fixtures
Paper and paper products
Fabricated metal products
Petro-chemicals
Aerospace
Wood/products of wood
Pharmaceuticals
Printing/publishing
Transportation equipment
Medical devices
Tobacco Products
Valves and pipe fittings
Non-metallic mineral
Household appliances
Food-processing plants, equipment, machinery
Automobile components
Ceramic tile
Tyre manufacturing
Industrialized housing
Welding
Smelter
Photographic and photocopying equipment
Maintenance Repair and Overhaul
Figure 8.
Manufacturing
sub-sectors examined
in the surveys and
case studies
Countries/Continent
20 19
18
16 14
14
12
10
8
5
6 Figure 9.
4 3 Countries per
2 2
2 continent where
0 the studied
Europe Asia South America North America Africa Australia - New companies operate
Zealand
From Table IV it is also apparent that the vast majority of the research gaps are identified in
articles published between 2011 and 2016 and the majority of them are in articles published
between 2014 and 2016. It is worth noting that in almost every theme, the respective
research gaps are identified mostly in articles published between 2014 and 2016, except for
the themes related to the human factor involved in Lean, Lean strategy, Lean critical success
IJQRM
Countries Number of studies Countries Number of studies
USA 22 Romania 2
UK 19 South Korea 2
Brazil 11 France 1
India 10 Denmark 1
Italy 8 Thailand 1
Germany 7 Norway 1
Spain 4 New Zealand 1
Sweden 3 Venezuela 1
China 3 Kuwait 1
Turkey 3 South Africa 1
Australia 3 Switzerland 1
Hungary 3 Jordan 1
Sri Lanka 3 Saudi Arabia 1
Canada 2 UAE 1
The Netherlands 2 Bulgaria 1

Belgium 2 Poland 1
Japan 2 Slovakia 1
Austria 2 Libya 1
Argentina 2 Paraguay 1
Finland 2 Uruguay 1
Table III. Indonesia 2 Mexico 1
Geographic Malaysia 2 Iran 1
research areas Republic of Ireland 2
factors and the inter-relations of Lean elements, where the research gaps are identified
mostly in articles published between 2011 and 2013.
Figure 10 shows the number of the literature references supporting the research gaps of
the respective themes. The themes of the research gaps which are supported by most
references concern the manufacturing sub-sectors and units where Lean is implemented and
Lean effects, followed by the themes related to the human factor involved in Lean, factors
affecting Lean implementation and the formulation of a Lean guideline framework.
Discussion
Discussing the profile of the reviewed articles
The profile of the reviewed articles is worth discussing. Emerald and Elsevier/Science
Direct are the main academic publishers which are host to journals publishing LM articles,
while Emerald and Taylor & Francis are the main academic resources of LM articles. In
the case of each publisher, “vital few” journals have published the majority of the LM
articles and “useful many” journals have published the minority of the LM articles, which
reflects the Pareto principle 80/20. This principle is also reflected in the literature review
studies of Jasti and Kodali (2014, 2015), taking into consideration the articles published in
the journals of all publishers.
Among the “vital few” journals, the journal with the highest number of the LM
articles reviewed in the present SLR, is the International Journal of Production Research,
which also ranks among the journals with the highest number of the LM articles
according to Jasti and Kodali (2014, 2015), Bhamu and Sangwan (2014) and
Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy (2016a). The journals with the second highest
number of LM articles are the Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management and that
of Production Planning & Control, similar to the findings of Bhamu and Sangwan (2014)
and Jasti and Kodali (2015). Hence, the above mentioned three journals and all the “vital
Themes Research gaps and supporting references
Research gaps
in lean
Type of study and Studying Lean through empirical studies (Shah and Ward, 2007; Jasti and manufacturing
its methodology Kodali, 2014); longitudinal studies (Menezes et al., 2010); addressing potential
self-selection (endogeneity) bias (respondents who implement and benefit from
Lean production may be more likely to respond to the surveys) (Eroglu and
Hofer, 2011); case studies (Taylor et al., 2013); more than one source of evidence
(Marodin and Saurin, 2013); the ANP-based approach and studies based on
contingency theory (Cil and Turkan, 2013); studies with qualitative and
quantitative data (Pakdil and Leonard, 2014); large segment of people ( Jasti and
Kodali, 2014), literature review studies ( Jasti and Kodali, 2015); large research
samples (Marodin et al., 2016)
Countries Carrying out research in developing countries (Nawanir et al., 2013; Jasti and
Kodali, 2014; Hu et al., 2015; Marodin et al., 2016), undeveloped countries ( Jasti and
Kodali, 2014), India ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014, 2016; Filho et al., 2016), China ( Jasti
and Kodali, 2014; Filho et al., 2016), Ghana ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014), Greece ( Jasti
and Kodali, 2014), Iran ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014; Zahraee, 2016), Thailand ( Jasti and
Kodali, 2014), Turkey ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014), South America (Hu et al., 2015),
Africa (Hu et al., 2015), Brazil (Marodin et al., 2016), Indonesia (Nawanir et al.,
2016), Russia (Filho et al., 2016), multinational companies (Secchi and Camuffo,
2016; Boscari et al., 2016). Carrying out cross-cultural research (Kull et al., 2014)
Manufacturing sub-sectors Carrying out Lean research in manufacturing (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak,
and units 2005; Sim and Rogers, 2008; Alsmadi et al., 2012; Alaskari et al., 2016; Sharma
et al., 2016), red meat (Simons and Zokaei, 2005), textiles (Hodge et al., 2011;
Manfredsson, 2016), automotive (Sezen et al., 2012; Marodin et al., 2016), process
(Lyons et al., 2013; Panwar et al., 2015; Dora et al., 2016), food (Dora et al., 2013,
2016; Vlachos, 2015), seasonal (Tanco et al., 2013), agricultural ( Jasti and
Kodali, 2014), horticultural and pipfruit (Doevendans et al., 2015), construction
(Saurin et al., 2013; Jasti and Kodali, 2014), service (Alsmadi et al., 2012; Marodin
and Saurin, 2013; Jasti and Kodali, 2014; Manfredsson, 2016), healthcare (Saurin
et al., 2013), aviation (Ayeni et al., 2016), and the maintenance repair and
overhaul industry (Ayeni et al., 2016). Examining Lean in automotive part
suppliers (Sezen et al., 2012), manufacturing SMEs (AL-Najem et al., 2013; Hu
et al., 2015; Vlachos, 2015; Filho et al., 2016; Alaskari et al., 2016; Manfredsson,
2016), food SMEs (Dora et al., 2013, 2016), and the differences between
manufacturing and service firms with regard to Lean (Alsmadi et al., 2012).
Examining Lean at the enterprise level (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005; Cil
and Turkan, 2013; Almomani et al., 2014); and in smaller units than the shop
floor (e.g. at the line, cell or department level, warehouse) (Marodin and Saurin,
2013; Sharma and Shah, 2016). Examining Lean in specific units of the
manufacturing system, such as cells, job shops or assembly lines (Saurin et al.,
2011; Marodin et al., 2015, 2016) and in the process of new product development
(Ringen and Holtskog, 2013; Khan et al., 2013; Tuli and Shankar, 2015; Mund
et al., 2015; Forno et al., 2016; Tortorella et al., 2016). Examining the concurrent
application of collaborative new product development and Lean concepts in the
automotive domain (Tuli and Shankar, 2015)
Waste management Focusing on all 7 wastes of Lean (AL-Najem et al., 2013; Amin and Karim, 2013;
Jasti and Kodali, 2014; Thurer et al., 2016), index/metrics for individual wastes
(Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016a)
Human factor Studying in the Lean context, how the importance of the human factor evolves
involved in Lean over time (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005; Losonci et al., 2011), the
management of employees (Boyle et al., 2011; Marodin and Saurin, 2013),
employees’ perception, thinking and feeling (Losonci et al., 2011), employees’
attitudes and beliefs (Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011); the
incorporation of customers in the analysis of Lean activities (Boyle et al., 2011);
Table IV.
(continued ) The research gaps
IJQRM Themes Research gaps and supporting references
the role of specific work practices in a Lean system and their impact on worker
commitment (Angelis et al., 2011); the implications for human resources
(Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011); managers’ propensity for
participative decision-making (Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011);
the influence of Lean duration on various aspects of the human dimension
(Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011); how employees in participatory
work arrangements respond to their work (Wickramasinghe and
Wickramasinghe, 2011); the roles of the people involved in Lean (Stone, 2012;
AL-Najem et al., 2013; Taylor et al., 2013), the outcomes of Lean from the
perspective of managers and employees (Longoni et al., 2013); how to deal with
contractual workers (less motivated and committed) (Tan et al., 2013); the
impact of Lean production on worker health and safety (Longoni et al., 2013;
Camuffo et al., 2015); the differences between blue-collar manufacturing
employees and front-line supervisors with regard to Lean issues (Bhamu and
Sangwan, 2014); manager’s support and its measurement (Marodin and Saurin,
2015b); the relationship between leadership attributes and Lean contexts
(Gelei et al., 2015; Dun et al., 2016); employees’ behavior (Narayanamurthy and
Gurumurthy, 2016a, b); the effects of pay on employees (Wickramasinghe G.L.D.
and Wickramasinghe V., 2016 and Wickramasinghe V. and
Wickramasinghe G.L.D., 2016)
Lean definition Defining the Lean construct (Shah and Ward, 2007; Bayou and Korvin, 2008;
Alsmadi et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2013; Arlbjorn and Freytag, 2013; Bhamu and
Sangwan, 2014; Samuel et al., 2015; Mund et al., 2015)
Lean strategy Studying Lean as a survival strategy during recessionary times (Singh et al.,
2009); the significance of implementation strategy (Hasle et al., 2012); the selection
of the appropriate Lean strategies based on the implementation time constraint
(Amin and Karim, 2013); the strategic changes needed (Piercy and Rich, 2015)
Lean barriers Studying the resistance to change that impedes the implementation of Lean (Sim
and Rogers, 2008); why companies fail in Lean implementation (Marodin and
Saurin, 2013); the chance of losing some contracts during the preparation phase
for implementing Lean (Almomani et al., 2014); Lean barriers ( Jadhav et al., 2014;
Tortorella et al., 2015); the origins, interrelations and relative importance of the
Lean barriers (Marodin and Saurin, 2015b); the constraints of capacity utilization
and continuous flow in the Lean context (Panwar et al., 2015); the nature and
classification scheme of the risks in Lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2015a); how
causal ambiguity (the difficulty in describing a complex phenomenon into a
causal model) can be a barrier in Lean (Shamsudin et al., 2016)
Lean theory Specification of the “theory of Lean” (Browning and Heath, 2009; Nawanir et al.,
2013; Jasti and Kodali, 2014)
Lean Critical Success Studying Lean success (Losonci et al., 2011; Bhasin, 2012; Arlbjorn and
Factors (CSFs) Freytag, 2013); why companies succeed with Lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2013);
the Lean critical success factors (especially in SMEs) (AL-Najem et al., 2013; Hu
et al., 2015); the actual preconditions of Lean (Arlbjorn and Freytag, 2013),
companies other than Toyota that have successfully sustained Lean (Khan
et al., 2013; Sisson and Elshennawy, 2015); the success in applying Lean
thinking to product development processes (Mund et al., 2015); whether the list
of the Lean CSFs is universal or dependent on contingencies (Netland, 2016)
Lean Learning Studying the Lean learning curves (Browning and Heath, 2009); the influence of
contextual variables – Lean barriers on the dimensions of learning organization
(Tortorella et al., 2015); the important mechanisms to transfer Lean knowledge
(especially in a small multinational corporation) (Boscari et al., 2016); the
mechanisms to combine Lean training, sense giving, adaptation and pressure
actions (Boscari et al., 2016)
Table IV. (continued )

Research gaps
in lean
Integration of Lean Studying the integration of Lean principles and tools within ISO 9001 manufacturing
with other management requirements (Chiarini, 2011); the integration of management
approaches accounting and control practices with Lean (Fullerton et al., 2013),
the full engagement of organizational behavior with the technical aspects of
Lean (Samuel et al., 2015); the integration of Lean and sustainability
management (Hartini and Ciptomulyono, 2015); the collaborative use of
Lean and change management (Keyser et al., 2016); the fit of Lean tools and
methods within the larger management system (Nicholas, 2016); the
synergy between operational resilience and Lean (Birkie, 2016); how
cyber-physical systems can be integrated into existing Lean production
systems (Kolberg et al., 2016)
Supply Chain Studying the incorporation of suppliers in the analysis of Lean activities (Boyle
et al., 2011); the role of the supply chain relationships to Lean (Chavez et al.,
2015); the extension of Lean to the supply chain level (Hu et al., 2015)
Lean benefits Studying how to sustain the Lean gains over time (Taylor et al., 2013); Lean
benefits in a real case (Filho and Barco, 2015; Manfredsson, 2016)
Inter-relationships of Examining the relationships among Lean bundles (Pont et al., 2008); the
Lean elements correlation in the adoption of different types of Lean practices (Menezes et al.,
2010); the relationships between Lean competitive bases, Lean attributes and
Lean enablers (Vinodh and Chintha, 2011a); the relationships among Lean
practices or among practices and principles (Marodin and Saurin, 2013); how
the soft (social) and hard (technical) aspects of Lean interact (Longoni et al.,
2013); the relationships among the components of the Lean enterprise
transformation (Cil and Turkan, 2013); if an enabler for Lean product
development, namely, the feedback loop provided by the customer, can be
reinforced by project members (Ringen and Holtskog, 2013); the inter-
dependent links of Lean systems as a whole (Samuel et al., 2015)
Lean implementation Developing a stepwise guideline or process of Lean (Papadopoulou and
guideline framework Ozbayrak, 2005; Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014); a statistically valid guidance of
Lean (Angelis and Fernandes, 2012); generalizable structured implementation
steps of Lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2013; Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman, 2013;
Filho et al., 2016); Lean implementation from the concept stage to the detailed
development of products and their related manufacturing processes (Khan
et al., 2013); the holistic, broad Lean manufacturing principles (Dora et al., 2013);
a standard model for implementing Lean (Almomani et al., 2014); Lean
frameworks/models for the enterprise level (Almomani et al., 2014); the entire
Lean implementation process (Pakdil and Leonard, 2014); “Lean” beyond JIT
(Kull et al., 2014); an action plan on how to select and apply Lean tools and
techniques (Anvari et al., 2014; Vlachos, 2015); the rationale for the selection
and combination of the Lean tools/techniques in SMEs (Hu et al., 2015); the core
elements that build a Lean product development system (Mund et al., 2015); the
application of the whole Lean product development framework (Mund et al.,
2015); a clear guideline to overcome the challenges of process industries to
implement Lean (Panwar et al., 2015); actually implementing Lean constructs
and tools (Dora et al., 2016); the process through which a Lean production
system is put into place (Secchi and Camuffo, 2016), the selection of the
appropriate Lean tools (Alaskari et al., 2016)
Leanness Developing Leanness as a holistic approach to manufacturing and its
elevation to the entire enterprise level (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005); a
systematic measure of Leanness by which companies can be compared across
time and with each other (Bayou and Korvin, 2008); an integrated, objective
and quantitative measure of overall Leanness (Wan and Chen, 2008; Anvari
et al., 2014); a constructive method to measure Leanness (Bhasin, 2011);
(continued ) Table IV.

IJQRM Themes Research gaps and supporting references
industry and firm-specific factors that may shape the Leanness–performance

relationship (Eroglu and Hofer, 2011); approaches for Leanness
assessment validated in the industrial scenario and supported with literature
(Vinodh and Chintha, 2011b). Studying the effect of internal Lean practices on
inventory Leanness (Hofer et al., 2012); what is “Leanness” for the purpose of
sustainability (Wong et al., 2014); the link between inventory Leanness and
company and financial performance (Isaksson and Seifert, 2014); the
evaluation of the Lean performance appraisement index (Matawale et al.,
2014); the degree of Leanness of process industries (Panwar et al., 2015);
Leanness assessment at firm and supply chain level (Narayanamurthy and
Gurumurthy, 2016a, b)
Factors affecting Lean The impact on Lean of internal or external motives of a company
implementation (Treville and Antonakis, 2006), the tasks and interactions comprising the
production process (Browning and Heath, 2009), organizational
contexts (Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman, 2013), environmental uncertainty

(Azadegana et al., 2013), the internal aspects of the firm or the
environmental conditions (Camacho-Minano et al., 2013), complexity and
dynamism (Azadegana et al., 2013; Birkie and Trucco, 2016), various
control forms (Kristensen and Israelsen, 2014), management accounting
(Fullerton et al., 2014), national culture (Kull et al., 2014; Wiengarten
et al., 2015), traditional systems controls (Tillema and Steen, 2015),
environmental dynamism (external contextual variable) such as technological
turbulence (Chavez et al., 2015), factors characterizing smaller units of the
manufacturing system (cells or assembly lines) (Marodin et al., 2015),
organizational culture dimensions (Bortolotti et al., 2015), the within-
organization processes of knowledge transfer and learning (Secchi and
Camuffo, 2016), Hoshin Kanri (Nicholas, 2016), the context of the automotive
industry (Marodin et al., 2016), the dynamics of societal culture (Filho et al.,
2016; Pakdil and Leonard, 2016)
Lean effects Examining the impact of Lean (multiple components of Lean or any of the
individual Lean practices) on company performance (especially in dynamic
environments, process industries, SMEs) (Pont et al., 2008; Fullerton
and Wempe, 2009; Menezes et al., 2010; Alsmadi et al., 2012; Karim and
Arif-Uz-Zaman, 2013; Belekoukias et al., 2014; Panwar et al., 2015; Filho et al.,
2016), non-financial manufacturing performance (Fullerton and Wempe,
2009), the ISO 9001 requirements and documentation (Chiarini, 2011),
organizational performance (Vinodh and Joy, 2012; Chavez et al., 2015),
financial performance (of companies in general and SMEs) (Hofer et al., 2012;
Camacho-Minano et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2015), the working environment
outside of manufacturing industry (Hasle et al., 2012), company
competitiveness (Arlbjorn and Freytag, 2013), employee outcomes (Taylor
et al., 2013), Leanness (Anvari et al., 2013, 2014), business performance
(especially in a developing country, Maintenance Repair and Overhaul
organizations) (Nawanir et al., 2013, 2016; Ayeni et al., 2016), the measures of
operational performance (cost, product quality, lead-time, speed,
dependability and flexibility) (Longoni et al., 2013; Nawanir et al., 2013;
Khanchanapong et al., 2014; Belekoukias et al., 2014; Filho and Barco, 2015),
social performance (Hartini and Ciptomulyono, 2015), sustainability outcomes
(Piercy and Rich, 2015), effectiveness improvement (Hu et al., 2015), the
occurrence of problems in the Lean product development (Tortorella et al.,
2016), applied services (McAdam et al., 2016), key performance indicators
(Alaskari et al., 2016). Examining whether having “too much” of Lean leaves
firms in a bad position when disruptions occur (Birkie, 2016)
Table IV. (continued )

Research gaps
in lean
Lean Examining Lean evolution (Papadopoulou and Ozbayrak, 2005); the objectives manufacturing
implementation issues of Lean in regards to material handling (Green et al., 2010); the original process
choice of the production site (Deflorin and Scherrer-Rathje, 2012); the internal
vs the external orientation of Lean (Azadegana et al., 2013); the complex
dynamics involving the use of Lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2013); the
organizational dimensions of Lean (Marodin and Saurin, 2013); the whole value
stream (Magenheimer et al., 2014); Lean as a control package (Kristensen and
Israelsen, 2014); the cost associated with Lean (Almomani et al., 2014); the time
needed for a successful Lean transition (Almomani et al., 2014); the ability of an
enterprise to execute crucial Lean tools and practices (Almomani et al., 2014);
the real complexity of Lean production (Marodin and Saurin, 2015b); the
internal TQM and TPM changes needed (Piercy and Rich, 2015); the selection of
different Lean-based improvement projects (Filho and Barco, 2015); the Lean
roll-out processes (Secchi and Camuffo, 2016); the interconnections between
implementing and sustaining Lean processes (Pakdil and Leonard, 2016)

Assessment of Assessing the level of overall Lean in the plant as a whole (Saurin et al., 2011;
Lean implementation Pakdil and Leonard, 2014), in specific units such as cells, job shops or assembly
lines (Saurin et al., 2011), in SMEs (Filho et al., 2016), and in the product
development process (Forno et al., 2016). Determining how Lean the system is
(Wan and Chen, 2008; Anvari et al., 2014), taking into consideration that
different companies cannot be rated objectively on their progress toward
becoming Lean (Bayou and Korvin, 2008); evaluating the progressing level of
Lean implementation (Bhasin, 2011); developing a Lean measurement
framework in terms of questions and parameters (AL-Najem et al., 2013);
assessing the relative importance weights for every element and principle of
Lean (Cil and Turkan, 2013; Lyons et al., 2013); assessing all the inter-related
factors of Lean including continuous improvement and the value delivery for
all stakeholders (Cil and Turkan, 2013); assessing Lean thinking
(Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016a, b); developing Lean assessment
methods based on the simulation method and Lean assessment techniques to
apply Lean benchmarks and financial viability analysis of implementing Lean
(Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016a, b) Table IV.
few” journals publishing the majority of the LM articles can be considered as more
Lean-oriented journals than the others, namely, “useful many” journals publishing the
minority of the LM articles.
Similar to the literature review studies of Stone (2012), Jasti and Kodali (2014, 2015),
Bhamu and Sangwan (2014), Samuel et al. (2015) and Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy
(2016a), the present SLR also reveals a diachronic increase in the published LM articles.
This is optimistic and shows that with the passing of time the number of authors focusing
on Lean issues is increasing. Thus, there are positive signs that the LM literature will be
further developed.
The majority of the LM articles of the present SLR describe surveys and case studies,
similar to the literature review studies of Jasti and Kodali (2014), Samuel et al. (2015) and
Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy (2016a). However, contrary to those literature review
studies, in the present SLR, the articles describing case studies are fewer than the respective
articles on surveys. So, the present SLR confirms the growth of the LM research carried out
in the form of a survey or a case study.
Several manufacturing sub-sectors participate in the surveys and case studies presented
in the sample articles, which confirms the wide applicability of Lean throughout the
manufacturing sector. The manufacturing sub-sectors mostly examined in the surveys
and case studies of the present SLR, are also examined in the articles reviewed by
IJQRM Number of References/Theme
of research gaps
40
35
35
31
30
25
20 19 19
20
15 14 13 13
11 11 10
10 9 8 8 8
5 4
5 3 3 3 3
0
tio an lv eff ts
ui pl n s
lin e an
m on
an nta an rk
pl is s
en ues
nd ac ou n
m (C es
em Le do s)
t a ba y
on Lea pro ers
W ea de hes
m em n
Le age nts
Le str ent
Le en y
an th s
Su ea ry
ly ng
in
im ed ect
im on nes
en an log
b g
Le an efit
C atio
te el itio
i
ha
ho F
Le wo
L eo
en g r in Lea un
ts rs tri
an ate
de em Le
fra ti
pp rni
an e
p rri
an m
et S
e nta
em s
g n ac
as n fin
C
n
e
t
d
an
i
ta Le vo n
o
s
t
t
or
ct
L
e
F
se
of m
i
s
e
ud es
b-
em ti to
l
e
en imp
g
g
a
su
am
st c
pl ec ac
a
c
n
an
of Su
f
g
ss an
ps
n
rin
rm
t
a
pe al
hi
se Le
an ors m
tu
Ty ritic
he
ns
m
Le ct Hu
im ff
ac
ot
io
Figure 10.
uf
at
an
ith
an
el
As
The number
w
M
r-r
Le
Fa
an
te
of literature
In
Le
of
references per theme

n
io
at
of research gaps
gr
te
In
Moyano-Fuentes and Sacristan-Diaz (2012), Jasti and Kodali (2015) and Narayanamurthy
and Gurumurthy (2016a). Europe and Asia are the continents with the majority of the
countries where LM research is conducted, a fact that is also observed in the literature
reviews of Hu et al. (2015) and Jasti and Kodali (2015). Finally, according to the present
SLR and the literature review studies of Jasti and Kodali (2014) and Bhamu and Sangwan
(2014), the USA and the UK are the top countries where LM research takes place. Thus,
the present study confirms that the Lean research is spreading in Europe and Asia and is
being led by countries with a long history in Lean publications such as the USA and the UK
(Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014).
Discussing the research gaps in LM

The fact that the majority of the research gaps have been identified in recently published articles,
meaning between 2014 and 2016, may be justified due to the diachronic increase in the published
LM articles. However, this also means that the authors are currently keen on identifying research
gaps and providing this information for the benefit of the academic community.
The research gaps classified in a respective theme are highly inter-related. This makes
each theme unidimensional and substantially discriminating from the others. However, a kind
of relationship among some themes does exist. Thus, the themes of research gaps with regard
to the Lean approach itself can be further classified into three sub-categories. More
specifically, these sub-categories concern themes with regard to the pre-implementation phase
(e.g. Lean theory, definition, strategy, barriers, critical success factors, learning,
implementation guideline framework and the human factor involved in Lean), the
implementation phase itself (e.g. waste management, Lean implementation issues,
the assessment of Lean implementation and the inter-relationships among Lean elements)
and the post-implementation phase (e.g. Leanness, Lean benefits and effects) of Lean in the
manufacturing environment (Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014). On the other hand, the themes of
research gaps describing factors outside the Lean approach itself concern the company (e.g. its
sector, supply chain and internal influencing factors), the country which the company Research gaps
operates in, the diverse managerial systems available and the methodological research in lean
approach. From the above it is apparent that the themes of the research gaps concern mostly manufacturing
the Lean implementation phases rather than factors outside the Lean approach. This is also
evident from the number of literature references supporting the research gaps. This means
that it is first the Lean approach itself including its phases which needs to be further
investigated in order to build a robust Lean system which could be adjusted to any
environment (e.g. company, country, established management system, etc.).
Research gaps of LM are also identified in previous literature review studies, such as
those of Bhamu and Sangwan (2014), Jasti and Kodali (2014), Hu et al. (2015) and
Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy (2016a). However, these studies do not thoroughly
present research gaps of LM, and moreover, do not group them into meaningful themes and
prioritize these themes, as the present study does in an attempt to provide an analytical and
simultaneously a summated picture of the LM research gaps. Moreover, the majority of the
research gaps identified in previous studies concern either the internal nature of the LM
approach (Bhamu and Sangwan, 2014; Narayanamurthy and Gurumurthy, 2016a) or the
external nature of LM ( Jasti and Kodali, 2014; Hu et al., 2015). Only Moyano-Fuentes and
Sacristan-Diaz (2012) who reviewed articles published from the end of the 1980s to 2009 and
Jasti and Kodali (2015) who reviewed articles published from 1988 to 2011, identified,
similar to the present SLR, research gaps concerning both the internal and external
nature of LM.
Conclusions and directions for future research

The voice of many authors and experts with regard to the dearth of literature review studies
on LM has motivated the authors of the present study to systematically review the literature
focusing on the research gaps of LM. This study contributes to the literature by determining
a plethora of LM research gaps and presenting them analytically, formulating meaningful
themes of these gaps, and finally, prioritizing these themes based on the number of the
supporting references.
Themes with regard to the pre-implementation, the implementation and the
post-implementation phases of Lean are identified; as well as themes related to the
company, the country which the company operates in, the diverse managerial systems and
the methodological research approach. The main themes which are supported by most
literature references concern the manufacturing sub-sectors and units where Lean is
implemented, Lean effects, the human factor involved in Lean, factors affecting Lean
implementation and the formulation of a Lean guideline framework.
The present SLR is beneficial not only for academics and researchers but for
practitioners and policy makers too. Based on the analytically presented research gaps as
well as the respective themes revealed, academics and researchers can design studies of
high originality and value for further developing LM methodology. Moreover, according to
the present study findings, authors wishing to conduct future literature review studies on
LM can base them on the “vital few” journals which publish the majority of LM articles. The
research gaps and themes presented in this SLR can also be taken into consideration by
practitioners at company level in order to properly adjust their LM implementation plans
based only on the existing knowledge. Finally, policy makers at governmental level can
formulate funding programs for LM research studies.
Taking into consideration only four academic publishers; excluding books, online sites and
gray literature; excluding studies examining an individual Lean principle or tool/technique or
bundle of practices and studies related to TPS, Lean-Six Sigma, Lean-Agile manufacturing
and Lean-Green management; excluding the supply chain network as well as the services
sector; and the subjectivity of grouping the large number of the research gaps based on their
IJQRM affinity, are the main limitations of the present SLR. Based on these limitations, respective
future literature review studies can be designed. It is also worth comparing and contrasting
the LM practices in the West with those in the East from cultural and leadership perspectives.
References
Alaskari, O., Ahmad, M.M. and Pinedo-Cuenca, R. (2016), “Development of a methodology to assist
manufacturing SMEs in the selection of appropriate Lean tools”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 62-84.
Albliwi, S.A., Antony, J. and Lim, S.A.H. (2015), “A systematic review of Lean Six Sigma for the
manufacturing industry”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 665-691.
Albliwi, S., Antony, J., Lim, S.A.H. and van der Wiele, T. (2014), “Critical failure factors of Lean Six
Sigma: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 31 No. . 9, pp. 1012-1030.
Almomani, M.A., Abdelhadi, A., Mumani, A., Momani, A. and Aladeemy, M. (2014), “A proposed
integrated model of Lean assessment and analytical hierarchy process for a dynamic road map
of Lean implementation”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 72 Nos 1-4, pp. 161-172.
AL-Najem, M., Dhakal, H., Labib, A. and Bennett, N. (2013), “Lean readiness level within Kuwaiti
manufacturing industries”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 280-320.
Alsmadi, M., Almani, A. and Jerisat, R. (2012), “A comparative analysis of Lean practices and
performance in the UK manufacturing and service sector firms”, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 381-396.
Amin, M.A. and Karim, M.A. (2013), “A time-based quantitative approach for selecting Lean strategies
for manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 4,
pp. 1146-1167.
Angelis, J. and Fernandes, B. (2012), “Innovative Lean: work practices and product and process
improvements”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 74-84.
Angelis, J., Conti, R., Cooper, C. and Gill, C. (2011), “Building a high-commitment Lean culture”, Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 569-586.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N. and Yusuff, R.M. (2013), “A dynamic modeling to measure Lean performance
within Lean attributes”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 66 Nos 5-8, pp. 663-677.
Anvari, A., Zulkifli, N., Sorooshian, S. and Boyerhassani, O. (2014), “An integrated design methodology
based on the use of group AHP-DEA approach for measuring Lean tools efficiency with
undesirable output”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 70
Nos 9-12, pp. 2169-2186.
Arlbjorn, J.S. and Freytag, P.V. (2013), “Evidence of Lean: a review of international peer-reviewed
journal articles”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 174-205.
Ayeni, P., Ball, P. and Baines, T. (2016), “Towards the strategic adoption of Lean in aviation
maintenance repair and overhaul (MRO) industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 38-61.
Azadegana, A., Patel, P.C., Zangoueinezhad, A. and Linderman, K. (2013), “The effect of environmental
complexity and environmental dynamism on Lean practices”, Journal of Operations
Barbosa, G.F., Carvalho, J. and Filho, E.V.G. (2014), “A proper framework for design of
aircraft production system based on Lean manufacturing principles focusing to automated
processes”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 72 Nos 9/12,
pp. 1257-1273.
Bayou, M.E. and Korvin, A. (2008), “Measuring the Leanness of manufacturing systems-a case study of
ford motor company and general motors”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 287-304.
Belekoukias, I., Garza-Reyes, J.A. and Kumar, V. (2014), “The impact of Lean methods and tools on the Research gaps
operational performance of manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production in lean
Research, Vol. 52 No. 18, pp. 5346-5366.
manufacturing
Bhamu, J. and Sangwan, K.S. (2014), “Lean manufacturing: literature review and research issues”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 876-940.
Bhasin, S. (2011), “Measuring the Leanness of an organisation”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Bhasin, S. (2012), “Prominent obstacles to Lean”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Birkie, S.E. (2016), “Operational resilience and Lean: in search of synergies and tradeoffs”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 185-207.
Birkie, S.E. and Trucco, P. (2016), “Understanding dynamism and complexity factors in engineer-to-
order and their influence on Lean implementation strategy”, Production Planning & Control,
Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 345-359.
Bortolotti, T., Boscari, S. and Danese, P. (2015), “Successful Lean implementation: organizational
culture and soft Lean practices”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 160,
pp. 182-201.
Boscari, S., Danese, P. and Romano, P. (2016), “Implementation of Lean production in multinational
corporations: a case study of the transfer process from headquarters to subsidiaries”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 176, pp. 53-68.
Boyle, T.A., Scherrer-Rathje, M. and Stuart, I. (2011), “Learning to be Lean: the influence of external
information sources in Lean improvements”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Browning, T.R. and Heath, R.D. (2009), “Reconceptualizing the effects of Lean on production costs with
evidence from the F-22 program”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-44.
Camacho-Minano, M., Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacristan-Diaz, M. (2013), “What can we learn from the
evolution of research on Lean management assessment?”, International Journal of Production
Camuffo, A., Stefano, F. and Paolino, C. (2015), “Safety reloaded: Lean operations and high involvement
work practices for sustainable workplaces”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 143 No. 2, pp. 245-259.
Carlborg, P., Kindström, D. and Kowalkowski, C. (2013), “A Lean approach for service productivity
improvements: synergy or oxymoron?”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 291-304.
Chan, C.Y.P., Taylor, G. and Ip, W.C. (2009), “Applying QFD to develop a training course for clothing
merchandisers”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 34-45.
Chaplin, L., Heap, J. and O’Rourke, S.T.J. (2016), “Could ‘Lean lite’ be the cost effective solution to
applying Lean manufacturing in developing economies?”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 126-136.
Chavez, R., Yu, W., Jacobs, M., Fynes, B., Wiengarten, F. and Lecuna, A. (2015), “Internal Lean practices
and performance: the role of technological turbulence”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 160, pp. 157-171.
Chiarini, A. (2011), “Integrating Lean thinking into ISO 9001: a first guideline”, International Journal of
Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 96-117.
Cil, I. and Turkan, Y.S. (2013), “An ANP-based assessment model for Lean enterprise transformation”,
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 64 Nos 5-8, pp. 1113-1130.
Deflorin, P. and Scherrer-Rathje, M. (2012), “Challenges in the transformation to Lean production from
different manufacturing-process choices: a path-dependent perspective”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 14, pp. 3956-3973.
Doevendans, H.J.T., Grigg, N.P. and Goodyer, J. (2015), “Exploring Lean deployment in New Zealand
apple pack-houses”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 46-60.
IJQRM Dora, M., Kumar, M. and Gellynck, X. (2016), “Determinants and barriers to Lean implementation in
food-processing SMEs – a multiple case analysis”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 1-23.
Dora, M., Goubergen, D.V., Kumar, M., Molnar, A. and Gellynck, X. (2013), “Application of Lean
practices in small and medium-sized food enterprises”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 1,
pp. 125-141.
Dun, D.H., Hicks, J.N. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2016), “Values and behaviors of effective Lean
managers: mixed-methods exploratory research”, European Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 174-186.
Eroglu, C. and Hofer, C. (2011), “Lean, Leaner, too Lean? The inventory-performance link revisited”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 356-369.
Filho, M.G. and Barco, C.F. (2015), “A framework for choosing among different Lean-based
improvement programs”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 81 Nos 1-4, pp. 183-197.
Filho, M.G., Ganga, G.M.D. and Gunasekaran, A. (2016), “Lean manufacturing in Brazilian small and
medium enterprises: implementation and effect on performance”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 24, pp. 7523-7545.
Forno, A.J.D., Forcellini, F.A., Kipper, L.M. and Pereira, F.A. (2016), “Method for evaluation via
benchmarking of the Lean product development process”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 792-816.
Fullerton, R.R. and Wempe, W.F. (2009), “Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures,
and financial performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 214-240.
Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K. (2013), “Management accounting and control practices
in a lean manufacturing environment”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 50-71.
Fullerton, R.R., Kennedy, F.A. and Widener, S.K. (2014), “Lean manufacturing and firm performance:
the incremental contribution of Lean management accounting practices”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 7/8, pp. 414-428.
Gamage, P., Jayamaha, N.P. and Grigg, N.P. (2016), “Acceptance of Taguchi’s quality philosophy and
practice by Lean practitioners in apparel manufacturing”, Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, Vol. 28 Nos 11-12, pp. 1-17.
Gelei, A., Losonci, D. and Matyusz, Z. (2015), “Lean production and leadership attributes – the case of
Hungarian production managers”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 477-500.
Green, J.C., Lee, J. and Kozman, T.A. (2010), “Managing Lean manufacturing in material handling
operations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 10, pp. 2975-2993.
Hartini, S. and Ciptomulyono, U. (2015), “The relationship between Lean and sustainable
manufacturing on performance: literature review”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 4, pp. 38-45.
Hasle, P., Bojesen, A., Jensen, P.L. and Bramming, P. (2012), “Lean and the working environment:
a review of the literature”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 829-849.
Hodge, G.L., Ross, K.G., Joines, J.A. and Thoney, K. (2011), “Adapting Lean manufacturing principles to
the textile industry”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 237-247.
Hofer, C., Eroglu, C. and Hofer, A.R. (2012), “The effect of Lean production on financial performance: the
mediating role of inventory Leanness”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 138
No. 2, pp. 242-253.
Hu, Q., Mason, R., Williams, S.J. and Found, P. (2015), “Lean implementation within SMEs:
a literature review”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. Νο. 7,
pp. 980-1012.
Isaksson, O.H.D. and Seifert, R.W. (2014), “Inventory Leanness and the financial performance of firms”, Research gaps
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 999-1014. in lean
Jadhav, J.R., Mantha, S.S. and Rane, S.B. (2014), “Exploring barriers in Lean implementation”, manufacturing
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-148.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2014), “A literature review of empirical research methodology in Lean
manufacturing”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 34 No. 8,
pp. 1080-1122.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2015), “Lean production: literature review and trends”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 867-885.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2016), “An empirical study for implementation of Lean principles in Indian
manufacturing industry”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 183-207.
Karim, A. and Arif-Uz-Zaman, K. (2013), “A methodology for effective implementation of Lean
strategies and its performance evaluation in manufacturing organizations”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 169-196.
Keyser, R.S., Sawhney, R.S. and Marella, L. (2016), “A management framework for
understanding change in a Lean environment”, Review of Applied Management Studies,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Khan, M.S., Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E., Haque, B., Ewers, P., Sorli, M. and Sopelana, A. (2013), “Towards
Lean product and process development”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1105-1116.
Khanchanapong, T., Prajogo, D., Sohal, A.S., Cooper, B.K., Yeung, A.C.L. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2014), “The
unique and complementary effects of manufacturing technologies and Lean practices on
manufacturing operational performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 153, pp. 191-203.
Kolberg, D., Knobloch, J. and Zühlke, D. (2016), “Towards a Lean automation interface for
workstations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 10, pp. 2845-2856.
Krafcik, J.F. (1988), “Triumph of the Lean production system”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Kristensen, T.B. and Israelsen, P. (2014), “Performance effects of multiple control forms in a Lean
organization: a quantitative case study in a systems fit approach”, Management Accounting
Kull, T.J., Yan, T., Liu, Z. and Wacker, J.G. (2014), “The moderation of Lean manufacturing
effectiveness by dimensions of national culture: testing practice-culture congruence
hypotheses”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 153, pp. 1-12.
Lagrosen, Y. (2017), “The quality cafe: developing the world cafe method for organisational learning by
including quality management tools”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
(in press) doi: 10.1080/14783363.2017.1377606.
Langstrand, J. and Drotz, E. (2016), “The rhetoric and reality of Lean: a multiple case study”, Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, pp. 398-412.
Lim, S.A.H., Antony, J. and Albliwi, S. (2014), “Statistical process control (SPC) in the food industry.
A systematic review and future research agenda”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 137-151.
Longoni, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D. and Veltri, A. (2013), “When does Lean hurt? – an exploration of
Lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes”, International Journal of Production
Losonci, D., Demeter, K. and Jenei, I. (2011), “Factors influencing employee perceptions
in Lean transformations”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131 No. 1,
pp. 30-43.
Lyons, A.C., Vidamour, K., Jain, R. and Sutherland, M. (2013), “Developing an understanding of Lean
thinking in process industries”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 475-494.
IJQRM McAdam, R., Galbraith, B., Miller, K., Moffett, S. and McAdam, M. (2016), “The role of Lean at the
interface with between operations management and applied services within a large aerospace
organisation: a boundary spanning perspective”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 27 No. 15,
pp. 1298-1311.
McQuater, R.E., Scurr, C.H., Dale, B.G. and Hillman, P.G. (1995), “Using quality tools and techniques
successfully”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 37-42.
Magenheimer, K., Reinhart, G. and Schutte, C.S.L. (2014), “Lean management in indirect business areas:
modeling, analysis and evaluation of waste”, Production Engineering Research and Development,
Vol. 8 Nos 1-2, pp. 143-152.
Manfredsson, P. (2016), “Textile management enabled by Lean thinking: a case study of textile SMEs”,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 541-549.
Marodin, G.A. and Saurin, T.A. (2013), “Implementing Lean production systems: research areas and
opportunities for future studies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 22,
pp. 6663-6680.
Marodin, G.A. and Saurin, T.A. (2015a), “Classification and relationships between risks that affect Lean
production implementation”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 57-79.
Marodin, G.A. and Saurin, T.A. (2015b), “Managing barriers to Lean production implementation:
context matters”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 13,
pp. 3947-3962.
Marodin, G.A., Frank, A.G., Tortorella, G.L. and Saurin, T.A. (2016), “Contextual factors and Lean
production implementation in the Brazilian automotive supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 417-432.
Marodin, G.A., Saurin, T.A., Tortorella, G.L. and Denicol, J. (2015), “How context factors influence Lean
production practices in manufacturing cells”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 79 Nos 5-8, pp. 1389-1399.
Matawale, C.R., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2014), “Leanness estimation procedural hierarchy using
interval-valued fuzzy sets (IVFS)”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 150-183.
Menezes, L.M., Wood, S. and Gelade, G. (2010), “The integration of human resource and operation
management practices and it link with performance: a longitudinal latent class study”, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 455-471.
Moura Sa, P. and Martins, R. (2016), “Data quality requirements for water bills”, The TQM Journal,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 933-953.
Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacristan-Diaz, M. (2012), “Learning on Lean: a review of thinking
and research”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 551-582.
Mund, K., Pieterse, K. and Cameron, S. (2015), “Lean product engineering in the South African
automotive industry”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, pp. 703-724.
Narayanamurthy, G. and Gurumurthy, A. (2016a), “Leanness assessment: a literature review”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 1115-1160.
Narayanamurthy, G. and Gurumurthy, A. (2016b), “Systemic Leanness an index for facilitating
continuous improvement of Lean implementation”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Nawanir, G., Lim, K.T. and Othman, S.N. (2016), “Lean manufacturing practices in Indonesian
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 149-170.
Nawanir, G., Teong, L.K. and Othman, S.N. (2013), “Impact of Lean practices on operations
performance and business performance”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1019-1050.
Netland, T.H. (2016), “Critical success factors for implementing Lean production: the effect of Research gaps
contingencies”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 2433-2448. in lean
Nicholas, J. (2016), “Hoshin Kanri and critical success factors in quality management and Lean manufacturing
production”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 3/4, pp. 250-264.
Pakdil, F. and Leonard, K.M. (2014), “Criteria for a Lean organisation: development of a Lean
assessment tool”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 52 No. 15, pp. 4587-4607.
Pakdil, F. and Leonard, K.M. (2016), “Implementing and sustaining Lean processes: the
dilemma of societal culture effects”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55
No. 3, pp. 700-717.
Panwar, A., Nepal, B.P., Jain, R. and Rathore, A.P.S. (2015), “On the adoption of Lean manufacturing
principles in process industries”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26 No. 7, pp. 564-587.
Papadopoulou, T.C. and Ozbayrak, M. (2005), “Leanness: experiences from the journey to date”, Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 784-807.
Piercy, N. and Rich, N. (2015), “The relationship between Lean operations and sustainable
operations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,

pp. 282-315.
Pont, G.D., Furlan, A. and Vinelli, A. (2008), “Interrelationships among Lean bundles and their effects
on operational performance”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 150-158.
Powell, D. (2013), “ERP systems in Lean production: new insights from a review of Lean and ERP
literature”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1490-1510.
Psomas, E. and Kafetzopoulos, D. (2014), “The innovation practices of manufacturing companies in a
period of economic turbulence: the Greek case”, Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, Vol. 25 Nos 7/8, pp. 720-733.
Pullan, T.T., Bhasi, M. and Madhu, G. (2013), “Decision support tool for Lean product and process
development”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 449-464.
Ringen, G. and Holtskog, H. (2013), “How enablers for Lean product development motivate engineers”,
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 1117-1127.
Samuel, D., Found, P. and Williams, S.J. (2015), “How did the publication of the book ‘the
machine that changed the world’ change management thinking? Exploring 25 years of Lean
literature”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 10,
pp. 1386-1407.
Sangwan, K.S., Bhamu, J. and Mehta, D. (2014), “Development of Lean manufacturing implementation
drivers for Indian ceramic industry”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Saurin, T.A., Marodin, G.A. and Ribeiro, J.L.D. (2011), “A framework for assessing the use of Lean
production practices in manufacturing cells”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 49 No. 11, pp. 3211-3230.
Saurin, T.A., Rooke, J. and Koskela, L. (2013), “A complex systems theory perspective of Lean
production”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 19, pp. 5824-5838.
Secchi, R. and Camuffo, A. (2016), “Rolling out Lean production systems: a knowledge-based
perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 61-85.
Sezen, B., Karakadilar, I.S. and Buyukozkan, G. (2012), “Proposition of a model for measuring
adherence to Lean practices: applied to Turkish automotive part suppliers”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 14, pp. 3878-3894.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of Lean production”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Shamah, R.A.M. (2013), “A model for applying Lean thinking to value creation”, International Journal
of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 204-224.
IJQRM Shamsudin, S., Radzi, N.I.M. and Othman, R. (2016), “Causal ambiguity in Lean production
implementation in Malaysia”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 249-266.
Sharma, S. and Shah, B. (2016), “Towards Lean warehouse: transformation and assessment using
RTD and ANP”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65
No. 4, pp. 571-599.
Sharma, V., Dixit, A.R. and Qadri, M.A. (2016), “Modeling Lean implementation for manufacturing
sector”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 405-426.
Sim, K.L. and Rogers, J.W. (2008), “Implementing Lean production systems: barriers to change”,
Management Research News, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 37-49.
Simons, D. and Zokaei, K. (2005), “Application of Lean paradigm in red meat processing”, British Food
Journal, Vol. 107 No. 4, pp. 192-211.
Singh, B., Garg, S.K. and Sharma, S.K. (2009), “Lean can be a survival strategy during recessionary
times”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58 No. 8,
pp. 803-808.
Sisson, J. and Elshennawy, A. (2015), “Achieving success with Lean”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 263-280.
Sousa, S.D., Aspinwall, E., Sampaio, P.A. and Rodrigues, G.A. (2005), “Performance measures and
quality tools in Portuguese small and medium enterprises: survey results”, Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 277-307.
Stone, K.B. (2012), “Four decades of Lean: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 112-132.
Taj, S. (2005), “Applying Lean assessment tools in Chinese hi-tech industries”, Management Decision,
Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 628-643.
Tan, K.H., Denton, P., Rae, R. and Chung, L. (2013), “Managing Lean capabilities through flexible
workforce development: a process and framework”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 24
No. 12, pp. 1066-1076.
Tanco, M., Santos, J., Rodriguez, J.L. and Reich, J. (2013), “Applying Lean techniques to nougat
fabrication: a seasonal case study”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 68 Nos 5-8, pp. 1639-1654.
Tari, J.J. and Sabater, V. (2004), “Quality tools and techniques: are they necessary for quality
management?”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 267-280.
Taylor, A., Taylor, M. and McSweeney, A. (2013), “Towards greater understanding of success and survival
of Lean systems”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 22, pp. 6607-6630.
Thurer, M., Tomasevic, I. and Stevenson, M. (2016), “On the meaning of ‘waste’: review and definition”,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 244-255.
Tillema, S. and Steen, M. (2015), “Co-existing concepts of management control. The containment of
tensions due to the implementation of Lean production”, Management Accounting Research,
Vol. 27, pp. 67-83.
Tortorella, G.L., Marodin, G.A., Fettermann, D.C. and Fogliatto, F.S. (2016), “Relationships between
Lean product development enablers and problems”, International Journal of Production
Tortorella, G.L., Marodin, G.A., Miorando, R. and Seidel, A. (2015), “The impact of contextual variables
on learning organization in firms that are implementing Lean: a study in Southern Brazil”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 78 Nos 9-12, pp. 1879-1892.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Treville, S. and Antonakis, J. (2006), “Could Lean production job design be intrinsically motivating?
Contextual, configurational, and levels-of-analysis issues”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 99-123.
Tuli, P. and Shankar, R. (2015), “Collaborative and Lean new product development approach: a case Research gaps
study in the automotive product design”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 in lean
No. 8, pp. 2457-2471.
Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S.K. (2011a), “Application of fuzzy QFD for enabling Leanness in a
manufacturing
manufacturing organisation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 6,
pp. 1627-1644.
Vinodh, S. and Chintha, S.K. (2011b), “Leanness assessment using multi-grade fuzzy approach”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 431-445.
Vinodh, S. and Joy, D. (2012), “Structural equation modelling of Lean manufacturing practices”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1598-1607.
Vlachos, I. (2015), “Applying Lean thinking in the food supply chains: a case study”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 26 No. 16, pp. 1351-1367.
Wan, H.D. and Chen, F.F. (2008), “A Leanness measure of manufacturing systems for quantifying
impacts of Lean initiatives”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 51 No. 19,
pp. 5824-5838.
Waterbury, T. (2015), “Learning from the pioneers”, International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, Vol. 32 No. Νο. 9, pp. 934-950.
Wickramasinghe, D. and Wickramasinghe, V. (2011), “Differences in organizational factors by Lean
duration”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 4 Nos 3-4, pp. 111-126.
Wickramasinghe, G.L.D. and Wickramasinghe, V. (2016), “Effects of continuous improvement on
shop-floor employees’ job performance in Lean production. The role of Lean duration”, Research
Journal of Textile and Apparel, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 182-194.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Wickramasinghe, G.L.D. (2016), “Variable pay and job performance
of shop-floor workers in Lean production”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 287-311.
Wiengarten, F., Gimenez, C., Fynes, B. and Ferdows, K. (2015), “Exploring the importance of cultural
collectivism on the efficacy of Lean practices. Taking an organisational and national
perspective”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 370-391.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), “Beyond Toyota: how to root out waste and pursue perfection”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 140-158.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Free Press,
New York, NY.
Wong, W.P., Ignatius, J. and Soh, K.L. (2014), “What is the Leanness level of your organisation in
Lean transformation implementation? An integrated Lean index using ANP approach”,
Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 273-287.
Yang, M.G., Hong, P. and Modi, S.B. (2011), “Impact of Lean manufacturing and environmental
management on business performance: an empirical study of manufacturing firms”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 129 No. 2, pp. 251-261.
Zahraee, S.M. (2016), “A survey on Lean manufacturing implementation in a selected manufacturing
industry in Iran”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 136-148.
Corresponding author
Evangelos Psomas can be contacted at: epsomas@upatras.gr
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Psomas2019 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Psomas2019 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management

Research gaps in Lean manufacturing: a systematic literature review

Downloaded on: 14 February 2019, At: 17:28 (PT)

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

QUALITY PAPER Research gaps

LM principles and tools/techniques

Stage I – planning the review

Stage II – conducting the review

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Publisher – Journals Number of articles Percent

Stage III – reporting and dissemination

The research gaps in the current literature

Case studies/Number of cases

Literature review studies/Articles reviewed

The Netherlands 2 Bulgaria 1

Table IV. (continued )

(continued ) Table IV.

industry and firm-specific factors that may shape the Leanness–performance

contexts (Karim and Arif-Uz-Zaman, 2013), environmental uncertainty

Table IV. (continued )

implementing and sustaining Lean processes (Pakdil and Leonard, 2016)

references per theme

Discussing the research gaps in LM

Conclusions and directions for future research

operations”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 35 No. 2,

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen